silverelan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2019
Messages
730
Reaction score
681
Location
Seattle
Vehicles
2015 Subaru Outback
Country flag
For sure, but i doubt ford would allow it. The key is that i dont think those numbers are right
It's possible that Ford is deliberately being coy with the range and charging numbers. We are still probably 6-7 months away from release but competitors vehicles are 18-24 months. Given the time gap, it may be in Ford's interests to keep the true specs somewhat obscured since 18-24 months is still enough time for competitors to adjust their designs to meet or exceed the Mach-E.

Example, Volvo planned on giving the XC40 Recharge a smaller battery until Tesla revealed the Model 3 pack size.

https://europe.autonews.com/blogs/how-tesla-influenced-key-element-volvos-first-ev
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
For sure, but i doubt ford would allow it. The key is that i dont think those numbers are right
It's certainly puzzling. I fully expected a fast taper in the charging curve, but not THAT fast. For those numbers to add up (an average of just 117 kW for the first 10 minutes), that's maybe 3 minutes of 150 kW before tapering rather sharply. Like for example, 3 minutes @150, 3 minutes @120, 4 minutes @90. And then a more gradual taper to average 76 the rest of the way out to the 80% SOC point.

That's possible, I suppose, but it would certainly be disappointing. Although I guess it's a little skewed thinking of it on a time scale x-axis rather than SOC like we usually see in a charge curve graph. 3 minutes @150 is 7.5 kWh (~25 miles), which is 8% of the 90 kWh assumed usable battery. So let's say that's the 10-18% SOC section. I thought it might hold 150 for more like 10-30% SOC.

But I suppose to still take 45 minutes to fill from 10-80%, it does really have to taper downward aggressively for that to add up (if that 45 minute number is still accurate -- and it probably is since most other BEVs take similarly long).
 
Last edited:

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
742
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
I guess i was vague in my conclusions: i think the press release is dead wrong. Ford is using standard battery chemistry and have years of bms experience. The 116 kw average has to be for the whole session, and the actual 10%-80% charge time must actually be 32 minutes instead of 45. That would put the mach e on par for charging with other cars, instead of woefully behind
 

SnBGC

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
63
Location
Phoenix
First Name
Greg
Vehicles
Ford Focus Electric
Occupation
Managet
Country flag
Yes, that's what I'd see on my MS too. The first few minutes would look just great, but that charge rate would rapidly, and I mean rapidly, decline.

But most importantly, if you're like most owners, 95%+ of your charging will be done at home. So much of this can be largely academic. The only reason I used to use SCs as often as I did, was that for me it was free. Better to use Elon's cash than mine. But if I'm paying, it's cheaper and more convenient to charge at home. The charging cost at most of these fast chargers really suck, so the less you use them the better...and they're not great for the battery.

One more thing, most experienced BEV drivers never hang around for that last 10-20% of charge. It goes so slowly it's just not worth the wait.
Same basic thoughts as me. I read the headline for this thread and figured that Ford marketing was just trying to stay ahead of the competition.

However, I do think that first 10 minutes is important. There have been times where I just needed a splash to get me to my final destination so stopping at a DC station for 3 or 4 minutes to get the 20 miles range to get home comfortably is a bit of a game changer IMO...
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The 116 kw average has to be for the whole session, and the actual 10%-80% charge time must actually be 32 minutes instead of 45. That would put the mach e on par for charging with other cars, instead of woefully behind
Would it really though? 45 minutes seems to be a fairly common 10-80% charging time for many BEVs (that don't go higher than 150 kW). And 98.9 kWh battery is bigger than most other BEV models.
I guess I'd need to go look at some other comparable models again, but I'm thinking I've seen 45 minutes a lot as a common charge time.
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
37
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
CMax Hybrid
Country flag
If instead we assume that the footnote is wrong and they didn't update the total charge time, then the 62mi per 10 minute average is MUCH more in line with other BEVs:
  • Average miles added in a 10 minute stretch = 62
  • Average draw is 116kw = 18.6kWh / 0.16 hr
  • Average percentage drop in draw over 10%-80% charge session is 77% = 116/150
  • Time to charge from 10%-80% is 32.5 min = 60 min/hr * 63kwh/ 116kw
I agree that assuming the footnote is wrong is the only way that the press release could make sense.

I guess i was vague in my conclusions: i think the press release is dead wrong. Ford is using standard battery chemistry and have years of bms experience. The 116 kw average has to be for the whole session, and the actual 10%-80% charge time must actually be 32 minutes instead of 45. That would put the mach e on par for charging with other cars, instead of woefully behind
An alternative to your conclusion of 10%-80% in 32 minutes (30% improvement in charge time) is 30% improvement in range. It may also be a combination of the two.

The news release shows a charge rate (in miles per hour) difference of 15% (instead of 10%) between ER AWD/RWD. Therefore, range numbers probably changed. We don't know by how much yet.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I agree that assuming the footnote is wrong is the only way that the press release could make sense.
Not just the footnote, but the 3rd paragraph too:

Both all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive configurations are estimated to achieve a 10 percent to 80 percent charge in approximately 45 minutes while charging on a DC fast charging station2.

I hope you and Timbop are right, and that parts of that press release are all wrong. But I'm less convinced. They seem pretty clear reiterating the 45 minute stat right in the middle of the press release. Seems too explicit to be an oversight. But hopefully it is.

I'll be curious to see what the website shows if/when they update it with the "new" numbers. Right now it's still showing the "old" 47 mile number (same as before).
 

RyZt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
37
Location
San Jose
Vehicles
CMax Hybrid
Country flag
Not just the footnote, but the 3rd paragraph too:

Both all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive configurations are estimated to achieve a 10 percent to 80 percent charge in approximately 45 minutes while charging on a DC fast charging station2.

I hope you and Timbop are right, and that parts of that press release are all wrong. But I'm less convinced. They seem pretty clear reiterating the 45 minute stat right in the middle of the press release. Seems too explicit to be an oversight. But hopefully it is.

I'll be curious to see what the website shows if/when they update it with the "new" numbers. Right now it's still showing the "old" 47 mile number (same as before).
I am worried that the conclusion from timbop and I could just be wishful thinking. Thank you for pointing it out. We'll wait and see.

3 minutes at 150kW is just terrible. I'll be doubting Ford's engineering if that turns out to be true.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I am worried that the conclusion from timbop and I could just be wishful thinking. Thank you for pointing it out. We'll wait and see.

3 minutes at 150kW is just terrible. I'll be doubting Ford's engineering if that turns out to be true.
Yeah, 3 minutes (or thereabouts) sounds just as unbelievable, even though that's the only way I can get the numbers to fit. Either way something seems significantly off.

I still keep coming back to this quote from Ford's chief program engineer for the Mach-e though...

Mach-E will charge at 150 kw—briefly. Early materials about the Ford Mustang Mach-E haven’t been entirely clear if that vehicle will fast-charge at 150 kw, or whether it just needs 150-kw fast-charging hardware to charge at its peak rate somewhat less than that. Heiser verified that it indeed does charge at 150 kw, but only for a small window of time and state of charge. “At our price point it’s a position of strength,” Heiser said.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-how-project-went-from-milquetoast-to-mustang
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
742
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Would it really though? 45 minutes seems to be a fairly common 10-80% charging time for many BEVs (that don't go higher than 150 kW). And 98.9 kWh battery is bigger than most other BEV models.
I guess I'd need to go look at some other comparable models again, but I'm thinking I've seen 45 minutes a lot as a common charge time.
Well, I don't have personal experience but using ABRP and other sources for other models I get the following:
  • 54 minutes for a 2020 Chevy bolt (259 mi range, 50kw max draw)
  • 45 minutes for Jaguar I-Pace (2xx mi range, 100kw draw)
  • 36 minutes for Tesla S 90D (294 mi range, 120kw max draw)
With the model S's 120kw draw being a reasonable facsimile for the Mach E's 150kw max draw since it also has a better mi/kWh efficiency.

I dunno, I could be smoking crack but it doesn't make sense to improve the first 10 minutes of charging by 30% and then correspondingly lower the remaining charge rate by exactly that same 30% to get the same net charge times.
 
Last edited:

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
742
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Yeah, 3 minutes (or thereabouts) sounds just as unbelievable, even though that's the only way I can get the numbers to fit. Either way something seems significantly off.

I still keep coming back to this quote from Ford's chief program engineer for the Mach-e though...

Mach-E will charge at 150 kw—briefly. Early materials about the Ford Mustang Mach-E haven’t been entirely clear if that vehicle will fast-charge at 150 kw, or whether it just needs 150-kw fast-charging hardware to charge at its peak rate somewhat less than that. Heiser verified that it indeed does charge at 150 kw, but only for a small window of time and state of charge. “At our price point it’s a position of strength,” Heiser said.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-how-project-went-from-milquetoast-to-mustang
I don't see how it could drop to a 72% AVERAGE over the first 10 minutes though - even if it only held 150kw for 3 minutes then to get the average down to 116kw the average for the remaining 7 minutes would have to be 101kw. That means in 10 minutes the charge rate dropped by over 30%! That can't possibly be right.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I don't see how it could drop to a 72% AVERAGE over the first 10 minutes though - even if it only held 150kw for 3 minutes then to get the average down to 116kw the average for the remaining 7 minutes would have to be 101kw. That means in 10 minutes the charge rate dropped by over 30%! That can't possibly be right.
Agreed that that would be awfully poor. I was guessing 3 minutes @150, 3 at 120, 4 @90. But that's still very poor.

Here's a Model 3 charge curve that I see a lot. It appears to hold peak charge power from 5-21% SOC (16%) before steadily dropping. And that's one of the faster and more severe drops among EVs. If the Mach-e ends up being only 3 minutes @150, that would be 8% (half as long at peak).

But anything much longer than 3 minutes blows the curve on getting only 61 miles in the first 10 minutes. If it stayed at 150 kW for 10 minutes, that should be 25 kWh added. Even at a poor 3 miles/kWh efficiency, that's still 75 miles. You and I figured around 3.3, which would be 83 miles. Not 61.

Maybe it really doesn't peak at 150 kW at all?

Tesla-Model-3-LR-on-Supercharger-V3-June-2019-Data.png
 

LYTMCQ

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lyt
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
386
Location
Portland
First Name
Lyt
Vehicles
Telsa Model 3 LR AWD
Country flag
Try some math here to see if clears or muddies.

1. Mach-E battery is 98kWh
2.10%-80% is 70% of that is 68kWh in 45 minutes.
3.45/60 minutes, .75 of an hour.
4.68kWh/.75hr = 91kWh in 45 minutes.
5.91kW hr/.75 hr = 121 kWh average rate.

That's pretty good average rate per hour to 80%.

Unless I've botched the math.
 

timbop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
742
Location
New Jersey
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2015 Mustang Convertible, 2016 Dodge Durango
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
But anything much longer than 3 minutes blows the curve on getting only 61 miles in the first 10 minutes. If it stayed at 150 kW for 10 minutes, that should be 25 kWh added. Even at a poor 3 miles/kWh efficiency, that's still 75 miles. You and I figured around 3.3, which would be 83 miles. Not 61.
Right, which is why the 62 mi/10 minute average is NOT the first 10 minutes but the average for the WHOLE SESSION, which actually takes 33 minutes not 45.
 

dbsb3233

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Colorado, USA
First Name
Tim
Vehicles
2013 Ford Escape
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Right, which is why the 62 mi/10 minute average is NOT the first 10 minutes but the average for the WHOLE SESSION, which actually takes 33 minutes not 45.
That would be a very optimistic interpretation of it. Hope it's the case. But twice in there they contradicted that - in the footnote, and in the 3rd paragraph where they reiterated the 45 minute stat. Both would have to be wrong.

So either the press release is correct and it has an exceptionally short 150 kW window with a fast taper, or they majorly screwed up the press release to the point of questioning if any of it is correct.
 
Top